Do you think an active draft would slow or prevent the government from going to war?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on November 20, 2006

“Oh, most definitely. The possibility of a draft is one of the only things keeping them at bay, I would imagine.”

— Beau Nulton, Kansas University senior, Lawrence

“No, I don’t. I think those folks just do what they want. If they instituted a draft for elected officials and their children, then it might help.”

— Adrienne Cox, nurse, Lakeside, Ariz.

“I do, because the people who are making the decisions would be affected directly rather than indirectly. Those who voluntarily join know they’re putting themselves at risk. If it was an active draft, that’s not the case, is it? It’s being demanded of them.”

— Rueben Woodford, showman, Oxford, England

“No. An active draft might encourage it, actually. If they really want to start a war, they’re going to find soldiers to do it. An active draft might just help them.”

Just be sure not to operate a motor vehicle after an active draft. You might lose your license.

By the way, thanks for the comments yesterday. It was a tough loss Saturday. But really, it was a great game, and I think the better team won the game. At this point I think hearts are heavier here for Bo rather than for the game.

As for the ? o' the day, I don't know. I would hope they don't ever reinstate the draft, but who knows what gov't is capable of doing anymore. I like the idea of drafting lawmaker's kids, though. That would definitely change how things were done, wouldn't it?

OK, folks, why the delicacy of calling it the draft? What you are when you have a job you don't want and can't quit is a SLAVE.

CONSCRIPTION = SLAVERY.

The fact that you would be OWNED by the government makes it better in what way? If anything it makes it worse: In the antebellum south slaves were expensive capital equipment. If the job was dangerous they hired free men to do it! The government is effectively so rich they can squander resources at a rate to make the head swim.

I recon if I got a mere one thousandth of one percent of the money lost to malfeasance in Iraq, I'd have so much money I'd have trouble finding productive uses for it. . .

Just when you think the staff has presented the most stupid questions possible, they come up with one like this!! No, I don't believe it would do either.

The very worst drafts are due to the Northwestern Clippers fresh from Edmonton!! I suspect they are ms_canada's way of getting our attention:) Although she is now basking in the San Diego sun (lucky lady!!).

IF I offend anyone here, my apologies. Rangel's draft legislation pits us yet again on the comparisons of the haves & the have nots. That's as if he was saying that certain types of people are better off than the others. His legislation only hurts the Democrats come 2008. Now, the question I have is this: How can somebody, like myself, 30, given Rangel's draft legislation requiring the range of ages of 18-42, be drafted into war if I have a medical condition that would otherwise bar me from serving in the military, unless it means that I serve in a support billet, like with transportation or logistics administration?

The current all volunteer military certainly has a lot of knickers in a twist, eh?

RE President Bush's daughters: unless all of your children are grown, and neither you nor they ever sowed a wild oat, and you can be assured that they will never use bad judgment, you should give the Bush girls a break! If you have such a child, you should visit a therapist, you are living deep in denial.

Maybe congress ought to get a show of hands from the joint chiefs of staff before making these kinds of proposals/bills.

No one in the military heirarchy really wants a draft, as your
average draftee isn't exactly high caliber soldier material.

"The draft hurts military efficiency by substituting well motivated volunteers for unmotivated draftees, undermines military pay and benefits by removing the need to attract volunteers, and creates anxiety and unrest among tens of millions of people who will never serve. It is a dangerous pseudo-solution to a non-existent problem."
-State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia

Bowhunter, my apologies, it just seems as though Rangel likes to make comparisons between people & their statuses in life, & that is WRONG. Feeble, so far, Bush's track record of LISTENING to the Joint Chiefs is ABYSMAL! You all remember Eric Shinseki, former Army Chief of Staff, chastised for his views on the number of personnel needed in Iraq, that's a prime example of why this administration is BULL HEADED. It's because they NEVER then nor now listen to their uniformed military leaders. SERVES THEM RIGHT!

Feeble, so far, Bush's track record of LISTENING to the Joint Chiefs is ABYSMAL!

==========================================
Doesn't matter what the oval office thinks about the draft, takes an act of congress to get it going again. Every time a draft bill comes up, it either dies a slow death in commitee or gets voted down by an overwhelming majority (in 2003, I think the vote was like 430 to 2).

I can tell bowhunter isn't from someplace like Flint, Michigan. Remember, bow and dacs, employers - thus employees - pay for unemployment insurance. People on "unemployment" have paid into it, so you see, they aren't getting something for nothing, unless you think someone collecting from their homeowners insurance when their house gets leveled by a tornado is also getting something for nothing. The time one can collect unemployment is also rather limited.

Most employees never use it or need it, but sometimes the company people work for, and sometimes it is the company around which a town is built, packs up shop and moves to a developing nation somewhere to avoid paying livable wages and taxes here in America. This leaves the employee without a job. Unemployement checks can make sure they don't instantly fall into poverty.

I guess in your world, however, people never get screwed by corporations, never lose their jobs, and those without jobs are just losers not worthy of continuing to live so they might as well go die in some sh** hole like Iraq. Nice.

I sure hope your boss doesn't decide that you could be easily replaced by someone living in Bangalor.

If so, don't worry. I'm sure your wonderland Wal-Mart will hire you. Then you will get an employee discount on all the wonderful things being made by your former company by someone living and working in Bangalor.

The motivation factor stated in the quote in feeble's 10:44 post is not to be taken lightly. I imagine it would be a scary thing for a volunteer to think the person who supposedly has their back in a highly dangerous situation is someone who may not be motivated to do their job well.

I'm not saying that the unemployed or unemployment insurance are bad. Been there myself. But I bet the hazard pay in the army is a lot better then the percentage of past earnings check you get from the state for most people. And lets face it. There are people out there who ride out the unemployment check to the very end. I had a friend do it for 4 months while he traveled. He applied to jobs he was not qualified for on line and mailed in his forms so it looked like he was searching for a job.

As a near victem of the last draft... NO a draft does not deter politicians from going to war. I'm actually shocked that anyone would ever ask such a question. It was obviously thought up by someone too young to have been included in the Vietnam draft. On the contrary, I heard on the Sunday morning pundit shows that the reason we are not sending more soldiers to Iraq is because there aren't any. I'll guarantee you that if we did have a draft there would be 500,000 soldiers in Iraq, more in Iran and probably Chile as well.

I'm for compulsory civil service, but against a straight draft. I think the country would be better if everyone had to put in a couple of years administering Medicaid, serving in the military, working for parks and rec, or providing administrative support to state agencies.

Those who object to military service would have the chance, say, to do an internship in IT support for their local unemployment office instead, or take a spin as a trash collector. Most civil service agencies and organizations have low-level support positions, which someone could do with a high school education and some basic training, as well as positions that might be more challenging for those with higher skill levels. You could even do part-time for four years at the same time you were going to college instead of two years of full time if that was your preference.

I think an army needs to be made of people who are dedicated to being in it. Draftees are a bad thing, IMHO, because they're not really motivated to do more than cover their own butts until it's time to get home. However, if service of some sort is universal to everyone, no lotteries or indefinite deferments (say, everyone has to have it done by 25), a variety of options to choose from, then I think it would be something people could get behind.

Now, for those who don't want to do it, I imagine that if they were willing to forego any chance of government services or scholarships, be unable to run for office or perhaps even vote if they were over 25 and hadn't completed the requirement, then I wouldn't feel it was necessary to force them with threats of imprisonment or other dire consequences.

There is not even a slim chance that a draft would stop any wars. As was said by some of the responders above, it would encourage more and more wars, because you just gave them all the army they desire, to fight as many wars as they want.

Governments don't "itch" to start wars unless they have a standing army to use for that purpose. Remember, "standing armies are dangerous to liberty"... According to the Kansas Constitution. (Therefore, your freedoms would be at severe risk if there was a draft). The best and only way to limit government created wars is to withhold an army from their use.

I prefer to think of it as a near right, realist statement:) You obviously have never been terrorized by an able bodied homeless man as you attempt to enter a restaurant for your first cup of coffee for the day. It ain't pleasant!!

Given the high number of homeless who have mental disorders, perhaps having them in the military isn't such a grand idea -- unless you count all the homeless ex-Vietnam vets. At least they are already trained. (Yes, the last portion of that statement is intend for sarcastic pleasure only. Do not attempt to apply logic.)

Ceal, I have no doubt that being confronted by a homeless man first thing in the morning isn't pleasant, just as I have no doubt that actually being homeless isn't pleasant either. Besides, if everyone drank their first cup of coffee at home and gave the cost of their daily cup of Starbuck's frappi-lappi-cappi-whatever to a homeless organization instead, just think about how much medical treatment and help the homeless could receive. (That is my far-left idealist statement.)

Oh, and no to the draft -- except for drafting frat boys. I'm quite serious about that one.

Conscription increases the chance of conflict and also increases the duration and ferocity of the conflict. Wars have consistently gotten longer and more violent as countries have utilized conscription/draft systems to fill their ranks.

I do not think mandatory service is a viable solution either. Many countries that currently have this type of system suffer from a severe lack of experienced NCOs, Russia is a prime example.

I enlisted during Vietnam to avoid being drafted into a service I didn't want. I have always been against the draft and still am. I also continue to oppose the Selective Service registration because it does not include women. I have just read that the Democratic leadership will not support Rangel. Someone mentioned above not to take him too seriously, it is just a ruse to get his name in the paper...I'm afraid that I agree with that.
I also read that, unlike Vietnam, there will be less exemptions from the new draft. I recall the exemption requirements changing several times before the draft was ended. There will always be loopholes for the priviledged

bea, I was meeting a client at Wheatfields, when I wouldn't give money to an obviously intoxicated, able-bodied, young man, he just went nuts! The staff at Wheatfields was so accustomed to his raging that they came out and distracted him while I went inside. That time they called the police. Other times I was able to get around him. I'm certainly not the only one he bothered.

btw, I was only kidding about putting the likes of him in a life or death situation with any of the courageous men and women in our military. Things were getting kind of dull, and I knew I would get a response of some sort if I even hinted at touching one of the holy cows. :-P